Q26

[supervegan]

I'm trying to figure out why (D) is correct and (E) is incorrect.

Is it because the Nonintercourse Act is only about the approval of government for all transfer of native american lands, and the several suits to recover lands that followed once nonintercourse act took effect (ln46) is not part of the nonintercourse act but separate actions to rectify historic injustice?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi alicesk1214, great question!

Answer choice (D) represents the purpose of the Indian Nonintercourse Act, while answer choice (E) represents the purpose of the final paragraph of Passage A. The question is about the the purpose of the indian Nonintercourse Act (to guarantee the security to Native Americans against fraudulent acquisition by the others) and so answer choice (D) is the best choice.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope. Legitimacy?
(B) is contradicted. The purpose involved new laws, not existing laws.
(C) is contradicted. The purpose involves the principle of transfer, not the principle of acquisition.
(E) confuses the 1790 Indian Nonintercourse Act with the principle of acquisition (final paragraph, Passage A).

Hope that helps!

[hanhansummer]

What about the question? It says "the author of passage A would be most likely to characterize the purpose...".
I eventually choose D, but I feel very uncertain because of the expression of the question - seems like we need to relate the purpose to passage A.

[moshemeer]

mattsherman,
I do not understand why c is wrong? The language of the original INA act may have been discussing transfer but passage b says it's purpose was to prevent the fraudulent acquisition of Native American land holdings. This is the principle of acquisition.of paragraph A, which states that one can not legitimately come to own something which belongs to another( Native Americans)? ps first time poster

[yitsvi]

I strongly agree with moshemeer,
can someone please explain why the Act was not to prevent violations of the principle of acquisition?
An individual who would illicitly take hold of property from a Native American is disregarding the principle of justice in acquisition by not recognizing that the Native Americans, the first human occupants of the land, (thus the relevance of acquisition and not transfer), are truly entitled to the property!
Principle of justice in transfer would be relevant to a case where someone is illegitimately taking property from someone who became the rightful owner via a transfer.

Someone please help clarify and explain!

Thank you so much!

[ohthatpatrick]

In lines 3-5, it says that the principle of acquisition deals with gaining legitimate ownership over something that was not previously owned by anyone.

Since the lands affected by the INA are lands previously owned by Native Americans, there's no way the principle of acquisition can apply.

Native Americans already own the lands, so they can potentially transfer ownership to someone else.

The INA was an attempt by the government to supervise any potential transfer of ownership from Native Americans to others, so the INA is concerned with the principle of justice in transfer.

Hope this clarifies.

[yitsvi]

In lines 3-5, it says that the principle of acquisition deals with gaining legitimate ownership over something that was not previously owned by anyone.

Since the lands affected by the INA are lands previously owned by Native Americans, there's no way the principle of acquisition can apply.

Native Americans already own the lands, so they can potentially transfer ownership to someone else.

The INA was an attempt by the government to supervise any potential transfer of ownership from Native Americans to others, so the INA is concerned with the principle of justice in transfer.

Hope this clarifies.

Thank your for your reply.
I still am not understanding however, why the principle of acquisition is not the primary interest of the INA. Since the Native Americans are the only initial and rightful owner s, the INA seeks to ensure compliance with the principle of acquisition by ensuring that the initial rightful purchaser maintains ownership to the property unless the government deems the sale appropriate.

[ohthatpatrick]

The principle of acquisition would involve the government trying to assess whether the Native Americans are the only initial and rightful owner of the land.

As you implied, that is NOT the goal of the INA.

We already KNOW the Native Americans are the initial and rightful owner of the land. Goodbye, principle of acquisition.

From here on out, the only principle that matters is the principle of transfer.

As you implied, the goal of the INA is for the government to "deem that the sale [transfer] is appropriate".

[AyakiK696]

Would C be correct if it said "principle of justice in transfer"? I was choosing between C and D, and other than that distinction (which I didn't notice), they seem to be quite similar... Or does "assurance of conformity" imply that it's the ones participating in the transfer that are pledging to abide by some kind of guarantee?

[KenM242]

In case anyone is wondering why (E) is wrong, like I have been:

If the question had asked how the author of passage A would characterize the [implication] of the INA, then (E) can definitely be the answer. Almost all of second half of passage A is devoted to rectification and lines 44-47 talk about lawsuits launched by the native people to get their land back that was taken from that unjustly, probably using the provisions of INA. We don't know the the results of these trials but one thing is for sure: the act served as a means (or at least attempt) to rectify some unjust things that happened in the past.

However this was not the [purpose] of the act.

The purpose was, as it is explicitly stated in lines 41 to 44, to make sure the native land owners no longer get screwed over. People can use this act to ARGUE that 'oh, when I was 27 i sold (or forfeited) this piece of land I had but i think it was not a good deal, and I want it back', and this may well have been anticipated by the people who enacted the act but we cannot say that it was the act's very purpose.